On May 31, 2018, the Supreme People's Court issued a public verdict on the retrial of Zhang Wenzhong's fraud, unit bribery, and misappropriation of funds.Wumart Holdings Group Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as Wumart Group), the defendant in the same case, was not guilty, and the fines and property confiscated in the original judgment shall be returned in accordance with the law.
According to Xinhua News Agency, on December 25, 2007, the People's Procuratorate of Hengshui City, Hebei Province filed a public prosecution with the Intermediate People's Court of Hengshui City, accusing Zhang Wenzhong of committing fraud, bribery by his employer, and embezzlement of funds.
On October 9, 2008, the Intermediate People's Court of Hengshui City, Hebei Province made a first-instance judgment that: at the beginning of 2002, Zhang Wenzhong and Zhang Weichun, knowing that private enterprises did not fall within the scope of government debt technical reform interest discount funds, conspired to commit Wumart Group toIn the name of a subsidiary of China Chengtong Holdings Group Co., Ltd. (a state-owned enterprise, hereinafter referred to as Chengtong Company), by declaring false projects, defrauded 31.9 million yuan of interest discount funds for technical reform of national debt; from 2003 to 2004, Wumart Group acquired China International Travel ServiceAfter the Headquarters (hereinafter referred to as CITS Headquarters) and Guangdong Yuecai Trust and Investment Company (hereinafter referred to as Yuecai Company) respectively held shares in Taikang Life Insurance Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as Taikang Company), Zhang Wenzhong arranged for others to report to CITSZhao XX, director of the general manager's office of the agency, and Liang XX, general manager of Yuecai Company, paid 300,000 yuan and 5 million yuan in favors;Taikang Company used 40 million yuan of funds to purchase new shares for personal gain, with a total profit of more than 10 million yuan.
Accordingly, Zhang Wenzhong was sentenced to 15 years in prison for fraud and a fine of RMB 500,000, three years in prison for bribery by a unit, and one year in prison for embezzling funds.Eight years and a fine of RMB 500,000; Zhang Weichun was sentenced to five years in prison for fraud and a fine of RMB 200,000; Wu Mart was sentenced to a fine of RMB 5.3 million for bribery;In the article, Zhang Weichun's illegal gains will be recovered and turned over to the state treasury.
After the verdict was pronounced, Zhang Wenzhong, Zhang Weichun and Wu Mart Group all appealed.The Higher People's Court of Hebei Province made the final judgment on March 30, 2009, affirming the conviction and sentencing of Zhang Wenzhong's crime of bribery, misappropriation of funds, and conviction of fraud in the first-instance judgment;The recovery of illegal income; the revocation of the first-instance judgment on Zhang Wenzhong's fraud crime and the decision to execute the penalty;
Zhang Wenzhong was found guilty of fraud and sentenced to 10 years in prison and a fine of RMB 500,000. He was also punished for the crime of bribery and misappropriation of funds committed by his unit. He was sentenced to 12 years in prison and a fine of RMB 500,000.Yuan.
In October 2016, Zhang Wenzhong filed a complaint with the Supreme People's Court.The Supreme People's Court made a retrial decision on December 27, 2017, brought up the case, and formed a five-member collegial panel according to law, and held a public hearing on February 12, 2018.
During the retrial, Zhang Wenzhong, Zhang Weichun, their defenders, and Wumart Group all believed that their respective actions did not constitute a crime, and demanded that the verdict of not guilty be amended according to law.Prosecutors from the Supreme People's Procuratorate believed that the original judgment applied the law incorrectly, resulting in wrong conviction and sentencing, and suggested that Zhang Wenzhong, Zhang Weichun, and Wumart should be acquitted in accordance with the law.
After the retrial, the Supreme People's Court held that when Wu Mart Group applied for the national debt technological transformation project, the national debt technological transformation interest discount policy had been adjusted, private enterprises were qualified to declare, and the logistics projects and informatization projects declared by Wu Mart Group belonged to national debt technological innovation projects.The change of the key support objects of the interest rate discount is in line with the country's economic development situation and industrial policy at that time.The defendants in the original trial, Zhang Wenzhong and Zhang Weichun, violated regulations during the project declaration process of Wumart Group, but they did not commit fraudulent acts of fabricating facts and concealing the truth to defraud the interest subsidy funds for technical reform of national debt, and did not illegally occupy 31.9 million yuan of interest subsidy for technical reform of national debtThe subjective intent of funds does not meet the constituent elements of the crime of fraud.Therefore, the original judgment found that the acts of Zhang Wenzhong and Zhang Weichun constituted the crime of fraud, which was an error in finding facts and applying the law, and should be corrected according to law.
Wumart Group, the defendant in the original trial, gave Zhao XX a favor fee of 300,000 yuan after acquiring the shares of Taikang Company held by CITS, which was not for the purpose of seeking illegitimate benefits, nor was the circumstance serious, and did not meet the constituent elements of the crime of bribery by a unit;In the process of acquiring the shares of Taikang Company held by Yuecai Company, Liang did not provide assistance to Wu Mart Group, and Wu Mart Group did not obtain any improper benefits. After the two parties signed the equity transfer agreement, Zhang Wenzhong did not pay Liang 5 million yuan, and Liang did notWithout mentioning this matter, a few months later, without Liang’s knowledge, Wu Mart Group paid 5 million yuan for Li’s request through Chen, and there was no subjective intention to bribe for improper benefits.After learning about the incident, he made it clear that he had nothing to do with it, and refused to accept the money. The money had always been in the possession of Li XX's company. The behavior of Wu Mart Group did not constitute the crime of bribery by the unit.It should not be investigated for criminal responsibility for the crime of bribery by the unit.
Therefore, the original judgment found that the acts of Wumart Group and Zhang Wenzhong constituted the crime of unit bribery, which was an error in finding facts and applying the law, and should be corrected according to law.Zhang Wenzhong conspired with Chen XX and Tian XX, and took advantage of Chen XX's position to transfer 40 million yuan of funds from Taikang Company, where Chen XX worked, to the stock trading account of Castel Investment Consulting Center for profit-making activities., the evidence is conclusive.However, the original judgment found that Zhang Wenzhong's misappropriation of funds was for personal use and for personal gain was unclear and the evidence was insufficient.Therefore, the original judgment found that Zhang Wenzhong's behavior constituted the crime of embezzlement of funds, which was an error in finding facts and applying the law, and should be corrected according to law.
After the verdict was pronounced, the collegial panel delivered the retrial judgment to Zhang Wenzhong, Zhang Weichun and their defenders, the litigation representatives of Wumart Group, and the prosecutors of the Supreme People’s Procuratorate, and explained the relevant issues.It is reported that follow-up work such as state compensation, executed fines, and the return of recovered property in this case will be initiated in accordance with the law.
